Freebridge Community Housing Limited (202320340)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320340

Freebridge Community Housing Limited

23 July 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the property next door.

Background

The resident has held a fixed term tenancy with the landlord since January 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom terraced house. The resident occupies the property with her son. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has vulnerabilities that the landlord is aware of.
Prior to the 2022 tenancy the resident held a different tenancy with the landlord. The landlord offered her a management move due to experiencing anti social behaviour from a neighbour.
A few weeks after moving into the new property the resident reported noise from the adjoining property. The landlord investigated and found the noise did not reach the threshold to be considered statutory noise. Between March 2022 and November 2023, the resident continued to experience noise which she reported to the landlord.
In September 2023, the resident made a stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s handling of the issues. In its response it acknowledged her previous experience of anti social behaviour had negatively impacted her mental health and affected her sense of safety in her new home. In respect of the current noise issue, it said it was sorry her mental health had been affected, it had investigated and found the noise levels did not reach the threshold to be considered statutory noise. It had completed a number of actions, provided advice and assistance to her, and considered soundproofing of the property but concluded the cost prohibitive. It said it would support her to access the Early Help Hub.(This is a local authority department that provides support to families)
In October 2023 the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to stage 2. At stage 2, it again acknowledged the issues had impacted on her mental wellbeing. It said it was satisfied it had acted in accordance with its policies and procedures and that it had taken all reasonable steps to support her and reduce the noise levels. It did not uphold her complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to this service. To resolve the issue the resident wants the landlord to soundproof the current property or move her to a different property. She also believes that compensation should be paid for the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the property next door.

The landlord has an Anti Social Behaviour ( ASB) case management procedure. The procedure sets out how it will deal with reports of noise. This states it encourages residents to try and resolve noise nuisance between themselves. It also advises residents to report excessive noise to the local authority’s noise nuisance team. It says it will work with the local authority’s noise nuisance team who have statutory powers to tackle noise nuisance. Its procedure states it will contact the resident within 4 working days and offer the landlord’s noise app to establish the type of noise being heard and issue noise diaries. It also says it will carry out a victim risk assessment to allow early identification of vulnerable victims.
In respect of closing a case, the landlord has a case closure procedure. This states it will contact the resident to inform them the case is being considered for closure. It sets out that it will consider the residents wishes in relation to this and that it will put the reasons for closure in writing.
On 3 March 2022, 5 weeks after moving into the property, the resident contacted the landlord to complain about noise from the adjoining property. She reported that a child was left to cry for hours on end, the volume of the television was very loud, there was shouting at night into the early hours of the morning, banging on the walls, stomping, and crashing around after midnight and loud noise by the couple during the night. She said as result of her previous ASB experience she was taking medication and having counselling. She said her mental health was too fragile to speak to the neighbours about it. She said she felt left down and disappointed as other residents had informed her that the previous occupant had also made complaints. She said she had researched soundproofing and asked if the landlord would help with this to reduce the impact of the sound.
The records provided show the landlord spoke to the resident on the telephone the next day. It provided its noise app and asked her to submit recordings for the next 14 days. It said if the situation deteriorated within the next 14 days she should contact it by email. It also informed the resident it would send an email to an internal department to enquire whether soundproofing the property would be an appropriate solution. The landlord’s actions were appropriate but there is no evidence the landlord carried out a victim risk assessment. This was unfair and unreasonable especially since the landlord was aware of her vulnerabilities and mental health difficulties caused by her previous experience of ASB. Additionally, no evidence has been provided the landlord did send an email to its internal department about the possibility of soundproofing. This was unfair and was not customer focussed.
On 15 March 2022 the landlord visited the residents neighbour to discuss the issues. It provided feedback to the resident on its visit. It said the neighbour denied causing noise nuisance but would ensure noise is kept to a minimum especially at night. It said it would visit again if there had been no improvement by the end of April. It said she should continue recording any noise with the app and it would confirm the agreements made with the neighbour in writing to her. The landlord’s actions at this stage were appropriate, however the landlord has not provided evidence that it did send the outcome letter to the resident as it said it would. This was not in line with its policy and procedure.
Between March 2022 and April 2022, the resident uploaded noise recordings to the noise recording app. These were listened to by the landlord and the local authority. The local authority assessed the noise as centred around a child crying and banging on the cot. It considered this ‘non statutory noise’. The local authority closed the case and informed the resident the landlord would lead on the noise case going forward. In its closure letter to the resident, it informed her it had advised the landlord to consider soundproofing. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it acknowledged or considered the local authority’s advice.
At the end of April 2022 the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour. The landlord has not provided its notes of this visit, so it is not possible to know what was discussed. After the landlord’s visit the resident contacted the landlord in a distressed state stating that there had been loud noise. The landlord asked the resident for a detailed account. It informed her that it had asked a surveyor to check the property for soundproofing and it would chase its repair team. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it did this, or if it did, that it received a response and updated the resident. This was unfair and unreasonable.
Between May 2022 and June 2022, the resident sent recordings of the noise to the landlord. The landlord documented it could not hear anything significant so assessed the recordings as normal domestic noise. The records do not make it clear if the landlord informed the resident that it would not take any action. This was not customer focused and left the resident not knowing what was happening. Evidence of this is that on 29 June 2022 the resident expressed frustration that she had not received any feedback about the recordings or her request for sound proofing. She said she intended to contact a sound proofing company herself. The landlord said it would again chase up its repairs department but there is no evidence the landlord provided an update to the resident after this. The landlord’s approach between May and June was inconsistent and left the resident feeling ignored.
Between July 2022 and October 2022, the resident continued to experience noise and sent recordings to the landlord. In September 2022, the landlord offered the resident mediation. The resident informed the landlord that negative interactions with the neighbour up to that point meant she had no confidence mediation would work. She also referred to a previous experience of mediation which she believed made the situation worse. The landlord’s mediation policy states that face to face mediation is its preferred method of delivery however this does not take into account resident wishes and preferences. In the circumstances it would have been appropriate to have considered offering shuttle mediation or another method that did not involve being face to face with her neighbour. This service considers it a failing that the landlord did not explore alternative methods of delivering the mediation. Had it done so this might have given the resident more confidence in participating in the process. The landlord’s policy also states that a decision not to participate in mediation should not be seen as an unwillingness to resolve the situation however the case closure letter it sent to the resident suggests the landlord viewed the resident’s decision as a failing. This was not fair.
On 5 October 2022 the resident sent a recording describing screaming, shouting, and banging. The landlord listened to the recording and documented that it could hear static, faint breathing and nothing else. It is not clear what equipment the landlord used to listen to the recordings. The situation should have prompted the landlord to investigate the reasons for why it could not hear the noise described. The landlord lacked curiosity about the considerable variation between what the resident described and what it could hear when it listened. Additionally, the landlord has not demonstrated that it considered the time of day the noise was occurring. This was important as screaming, shouting, and banging in the evening and at night might have reached the threshold to be considered ASB. The landlord has not demonstrated it had a clear understanding of the noise the resident experiencing.
During the month of October, the resident sent the landlord at least 39 recordings of noise. While the records show the landlord listened to the recordings there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged or provided feedback to the resident. This was inappropriate and not in line with its policy and procedure. The situation caused the resident distress as evidenced by her email to the landlord on 2 November 2022 wherein she stated she felt she had been treated appallingly and had been ignored.
In response to this email the landlord visited the resident. It said it would visit the neighbour to discuss the issues. At the visit it inspected the position of televisions throughout the property and documented that none were placed on adjoining walls. It asked the neighbour to be mindful of the volume of televisions and conversations in the property to avoid further reports. The landlord updated the resident on its actions. It also told both parties that it would email the surveyor and ask for advice on sound proofing the property.
During November 2022 and December 2022, the resident continued to experience noise which she reported to the landlord via email. She expressed concern about the length of time a child was left to cry and other matters relating to parenting of the child. It is clear the resident found the situation very distressing. This service has reviewed the landlord’s actions and finds the landlord acted appropriately in the circumstances. The landlord also encouraged the resident to contact the local authority to share her concerns which she did. This was good practice and shows the landlord understands its role and responsibilities in respect of safeguarding children and adults living in its properties.
In January 2023, the landlord and resident met to discuss the issues. The documents indicate the landlord informed the resident she could pay for soundproofing. This was unreasonable and premature because it still had not inspected the property to assess the sound insulation as it had been promising during the previous 10 months.
This service finds the landlord unreasonably delayed in progressing the residents request for an inspection of the property to assess something it had agreed too. She first requested the property be inspected in March 2022. The landlord’s surveyor did not attend until February 2023. This is a delay of 11 months. This timescale was unreasonable and unfair. During the 11 months the resident had to continually chase the landlord. It repeatedly told the resident it would ask its surveyor to inspect but this did not happen. The landlord has not provided any good reason for these service failures. In email correspondence during December 2022, and February 2023, it gave the resident conflicting information. It informed her that soundproofing was not possible, it then informed her it would be an option, on another occasion it told her it was highly unlikely it would be provided, then during a meeting it told her she could pay for it herself. The evidence shows the resident was frustrated and confused by the conflicting information given to her. The landlord’s disorganised approach and extended delay in surveying the property was unfair and unreasonable.
In February 2023, the landlord attended and assessed the party wall. The findings were that there were no structural defects with the property. The party wall was typical of the age and construction of the building in that it had no soundproofing. It concluded “soundproofing would go some way to dampening the sound transference”. It instructed 2 specialist companies to provide quotes. The quotes were provided to the landlord in May 2023 and June 2023. The landlord decided it would not install soundproofing on the grounds of cost. The landlord has not provided any documents on how it came to its decision or demonstrated that it carried out a cost/benefit analysis or that it made any enquiries with its budget managers to understand what money might be available.
While it is appropriate for a landlord to have due regard to its financial resources, this service is not satisfied that full and proper consideration was given to all the circumstances of the case when it decided not to provide soundproofing. The documents provided contain a body of evidence that soundproofing would reduce the sound transference. These are the surveyor’s inspection report and the quotes provided by 2 companies.
This service finds the landlord did not adopt a customer focused and solution-based approach. For example, the evidence shows the resident was particularly affected by noise in the upstairs bedrooms at night. While it is acknowledged the landlord is not obligated to provide the improvement, the landlord could have considered providing sound proofing in the bedrooms only, to balance its costs with the needs of the resident and her son.
This service also finds that in 2022, the landlord approved a management move for the resident because of anti social behaviour. In its internal transfer report, it stated the experience had left her feeling ‘vulnerable and unsafe’, had a significant impact on her and her sons’ welfare, and aggravated her son’s health conditions. As part of its transfer process the landlord carried out a pre-tenancy assessment with the resident. The resident disclosed her mental health was poor and she had been prescribed medication because of her experience. The landlord has not acknowledged the impact of its decision to offer a property where it knew there was a history of noise reports. Considering the background of the case, this was unreasonable, heavy handed and caused distress to the resident.
This service has seen no evidence the landlord considered the history of noise transference issues with the property prior to the resident’s occupation. The resident says at the viewing of the new property she specifically asked the landlord if there had been any issues with the neighbours. The resident says the landlord told her the neighbours were quiet and there had been no issues. This was inaccurate and misleading because the documents show that prior to the resident’s occupation there was a history of reports about noise.
If the landlord had concerns about data protection, it should have explained its limitations to the resident and sought advice from its legal team or data protection officer, but it should not have provided inaccurate information. The landlord’s approach meant the resident’s decision to accept the property was not an informed one. This was unfair and unreasonable. The landlord must seek advice about what its responsibilities are when it offers a property where it is aware of previous complaints about noise or anti social behaviour. This services’ view is that the landlord must be transparent about the issues.
In July 2023 the resident experienced a significant decline in her mental health due to the ongoing noise nuisance and inability to sleep, rest or enjoy her home. The landlord acted appropriately in making a referral to the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), however there is no evidence the landlord carried out a victim risk assessment or carried out a case review of its approach and actions. This was a significant failing in its approach and not in line with its policy and procedure. It didn’t meet with the resident until just under 3 weeks later. The landlord’s notes reflect this was intended to ‘discuss the way forward’. The landlord has not provided any notes of this meeting, so it is not known what was discussed or if an action plan was produced. In the circumstances it would have been appropriate to produce an action plan and consider whether given the detrimental impact on the resident’s mental health, it now needed to adopt a different approach in relation to the ongoing noise reports.
In September 2023, the documents indicate the landlord intended to contact the local authority to install ‘sonic equipment’ in the resident’s property but there is no evidence it followed this up or discussed this with the resident. Given there was a significant variation in the noise described by the resident and what the landlord could hear, to not follow this up was unreasonable because this specialist equipment might have produced higher quality recordings over and above the capability of the resident’s mobile phone. The landlord’s notes reflect it planned to visit the resident’s neighbour in November 2023, but no records have been provided to show this visit took place.
In September 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s handling of the matter. The landlord provided its complaint response on 27 September 2023. It acknowledged her mental health had been affected by her experience of anti social behaviour at her previous property. It said the noise she was experiencing was non-statutory and considered typical household noise. It said there were no structural defects with the property and the location of the boiler in the property meant soundproofing could not be installed. It said there were no recommended solutions, and it would continue to support her in a tenancy capacity. It said it would refer her to the Early Help Hub with which may be able to support her in tackling the antisocial behaviour and provide financial and medical support. It did not uphold her complaint.
This service finds the landlord’s stage 1 response was not an accurate representation of the information provided to it by its surveyors and the sound proofing companies. The survey recommended a specification of works that would dampen the sound. After this, in an internal email dated 26 May 2023, it stated that soundproofing would reduce the noise. Additionally, the sound proofing company provided the landlord with details of materials which had a positive effect in a property it had recently worked on. In relation to the boiler issue, this service has carefully reviewed the 2 quotes provided to the landlord, and the surveyors report, conclusion and recommendations dated 2 February 2023. This service has not found any mention of the boiler location within the documents. Given the information it had been supplied with, the landlord’s stage 1 response in this area was unfair and unreasonable.
This service has considered the landlord’s suggestion of a referral to the Early Help hub because it might be able to assist her in tackling the antisocial behaviour (as well as the other matters). While this might have been appropriate, it did not outline its own actions or plan to support her with the matter of noise.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to stage 2. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 2 November 2023. It maintained that its surveyors had had not identified any property issues or failings which would lead to excess noise and its surveyors had been unable to recommend any works that would guarantee to reduce the noise levels. As mentioned earlier, this service finds the landlord’s stage 2 response in this regard to be inaccurate.
It apologised that it had not been able to reduce the noise levels she was experiencing and said she could consider her housing options. At no stage did it reassure her it would continue to monitor the noise levels and consider any action it might need to take. The overall inference in the landlord’s final complaint response was that it would take no further action. This was unfair and unreasonable.
On 29 November 2023, the landlord sent the resident a case closure letter. It said it had discussed the case internally and it had decided the case should be closed because the noise did not meet the ASB threshold. It said she had declined mediation on several occasions and a referral to the early help hub and signposted her to this service. The landlord does not appear to have followed its case closure procedure which says it will contact the resident to inform the case is being considered for closure. It will then discuss, and document any reasons given by the resident as to why the case should not be closed. Given the landlord completed a safeguarding referral, knew of her poor mental health and vulnerabilities, and its handling of the matters was subject to a formal complaint, the landlord should have gained the residents view on closing the case. This service finds the landlord’s closure letter was curt and overly brief, and it acted arbitrarily when it decided to close the case without any discussion with her. This was inappropriate in the circumstances and likely to place strain on the landlord tenant relationship.
In October 2022, the Ombudsman published its spotlight report on noise complaints ‘Time to be heard’. In April 2024, the Ombudsman published its follow up report. Both reports advocate a ‘prevention is better than cure’ approach. Although the Ombudsman accepts that landlords are not responsible for soundproofing homes above the standards applicable at the time of building, it needs to be recognised that actions taken to prevent and/or mitigate for the typical sources of noise nuisance will, in the long run, be more cost-efficient than handling the subsequent noise nuisance reports. Ultimately, and importantly, will provide a better quality of service to its residents.
In this case the landlord has taken some steps to deal with the noise transference, however, there have been failings in several areas. It unreasonably delayed in inspecting the property for sound insulation. From an early stage it provided conflicting information about the possibilities around soundproofing. It has not demonstrated that it considered all the relevant facts and information provided to it before deciding not to provide it. There is no evidence it carried out a victim risk assessment at key points of its investigation. These were at the beginning of the investigation and when the resident experienced a significant decline in her mental health. The Anti Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (revised 2021) states, “It is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to the victim, and their potential vulnerability, when they receive a complaint about anti-social behaviour. This should be the starting point of a case-management approach to dealing with anti-social complaints. The welfare, safety and well-being of victims must be the main consideration at every stage of the process. It is therefore important to identify the effect that the reported anti-social behaviour is having on the victim, particularly if repeated incidents are having a cumulative effect on their well-being. A continuous and organised risk assessment will help to identify cases that are causing, or could result in, serious harm to the victim…”. Additionally, its complaint responses were inaccurate in respect of the information provided to it about the benefits of soundproofing, and it did not follow its case closure procedure when it decided to close the case. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of noise from the property next door.
The Ombudsman has considered the failings identified by this investigation together with the remedies guidance and considers the failings identified in the landlord’s handling sit at the higher end of remedies available where there is maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the property next door.

Orders

Within 2 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should meet with the resident to find out her current experience of noise and the impact on her. It should complete a victim risk assessment, create a timebound action plan defining what reported noise it can take action on. It should share this with the resident and this service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must;
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
1. Pay the resident £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified.
2. Meet with the resident to discuss her rehousing options if she so wishes.
3. It should re-assess the information provided to it by its surveyors and specialist companies. It should speak to budget holders to understand its financial position. It should write to the resident advising her of its decision and its reasons.
4. Provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders.

In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide a review conducted by a senior manager within 10 weeks to ensure:
1. It self-assess against the Ombudsman’s noise spotlight report. It must share its self-assessment with this service.
1. It consults its legal team and data protection officer about its obligations and approach to disclosing previous noise and anti social behaviour reports when it is asked about these by a prospective resident.
2. It carries out staff training on when and how to use the victim risk assessment document.
3. It reviews a 20% sample of ‘open’ ASB cases in categories 2 and 3, to ensure the Victim Risk Assessment has been completed where appropriate.
4. It carries out a case review and provide evidence to this service that appropriate action has been taken to reduce the likelihood of similar failings.
5. Provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders.